JUDGMENT
G.B. Patnaik, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant. The appellant filed an application claiming compensation on account of the death of her husband Ratnakar Behera and it was alleged in the application that the death occurred on account of the accident caused by Bus No. ORD 3521 at 10 a.m. at Cuttack-Sambalpur National Highway. In the prescribed form provided for under the relevant Rules as against Column 18, the appellant gave her name and address and as against column 22 which provides for the names of other legal representatives of the injured and their relationship, no mention was made, but in Column 23, where any other information that may be necessary or helpful for disposal of the claim is to be given, it is mentioned “separate sheet attached” and in that sheet it has been clearly stated that the deceased had four sons and two daughters. Rest of the facts in the separate sheet are not necessary to be discussed in view of the points arising for consideration. After the application was admitted for enquiry and notice was issued, the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company entered appearance and filed their objections to the claim petition. The hearing of the case was fixed to 24-4-1985 before the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, two petitions were filed on behalf of the claimant, one for a direction to produce the insurance policy of the vehicle and another to enable the claimant to make other legal representatives added as claimants. The Tribunal passed an order on that date to the effect that there were other legal representatives and hence addition of the parties was necessary and directed to take necessary steps by 3-5-1985. On 3-5-1985, it was adjourned to 3-6-1985. On 3-6-1985, an application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil P.C., was filed on behalf of the claimant wherein the prayer for addition of other legal representatives as claimants had been made. The Tribunal by an order dated 24-7-1985 rejected the said application. The hearing of the case was thereafter fixed to 15-10-1985. On 15-10-1985, on Behalf of the claimant an application was filed to examine the claimant on commission since the claimant was bedridden and was not in a position to come and depose before the Tribunal. Another application was also filed on behalf of the other legal representatives to be added as claimants and this application was purported to have been filed under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C.
2. Respondent No. 1 also filed an application under Order 11, Rule 1, Civil P.C., to serve an interrogatory on respondent No. 2 but was not present when that application was taken up for hearing nor had taken any steps in that regard. The learned Tribunal rejected the claimant’s application to be examined on commission by the impugned order dated 15-10-1985 on a finding that Order 26 of the Civil P.C. has not been made applicable and the Tribunal is a Civil Court for limited purpose. So far as the application filed by the other legal representatives to be added as claimants is concerned, the said application was also rejected on the ground that Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil P.C, has no application and also on the ground that earlier by order dated 24-7-1985, similar application which had been filed under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil P.C., by the claimant was rejected by the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to allow another application filed on behalf of the legal representatives. Thereafter as the claimant had not taken any further steps nor any witness was present, the Tribunal rejected the claim on a finding that the claimant had failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus. Against this order of rejection, the claimant has approached this Court in appeal.
3. Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant, raises two contentions in assailing the order of the Tribunal:
(i) The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the scope and nature of an enquiry contemplated under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and committed an error in rejecting the claimant’s application to be examined on commission merely on a finding that Order 26 of the Civil P.C. has not been made applicable; and
(ii) The Tribunal also committed serious illegality in not allowing the application of the admitted legal representatives of the deceased to be added as claimants notwithstanding the claimant’s application for amendment having been rejected, since under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the duty of the Tribunal to find out as to who are the persons to whom the compensation has to be paid.
4. To appreciate the correctness of the aforesaid submissions, it would be profitable to note that Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act dealing with the subject of Insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risks making provision for compulsory insurance in respect of third party risks, was introduced into the statute on the basis of the recommendations of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Committee. In view of the frequent occurrence of accidents in India and in view of the fact that in large number of cases, the injured persons or the dependants of those who were killed find it difficult to realise damages and compensation from the owner or the driver of the vehicle in question, necessity of insurance was keenly felt against third party and, therefore, the legislature imposed duties on the insurer to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect, of third party risks. The provisions contained in the said Chapter ensure that third parties who suffer on account of the user of the motor vehicle would be able to get damages for the injuries suffered and that their ability to get the damages will not be dependant on the financial condition of the driver of the vehicle. Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it stood prior to its amendment of the year 1956, conferred powers upon the State Government to appoint persons to investigate and report on motor accidents but those officers had not been empowered to adjudicate on the liability of the insurer or on the amount of the damages to be awarded i except at the express desire of the Insurance Company concerned. Such a provision was found to be inadequate to the requirements of majority of claimants who are persons of limited means to get the necessary compensation, since Court’s decree was required to be obtained before the obligation of an Insurance company to meet the claims can be enforced. The Parliament, therefore, introduced Sections 100 to 110-F empowering the State Government to appoint Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal who would have the duty and obligation to determine the quantum of compensation and adjudicate upon the claims in respect of accidents involving death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the user of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. These seven sections, namely, Sections 110 to 110-F are a complete code by itself providing for appointment of claims tribunals, making of application for compensation to such tribunal award of claims by the tribunal, procedure and powers of the said tribunal, aggrieved persons’ right to prefer an appeal against the award, recovery of money due from any person in an award as an arrear of land revenue and the bar of jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of matters which can be adjudicated upon by the claims tribunal. These provisions clearly bring out the legislative policy behind it which is nothing : but appointing a person with sufficient judicial acumen and conferring wide powers on him to adjudicate upon the lis and shortening of the lengthy procedure in ordinary common law court so that a speedy and efficacious remedy can be made available to the millions of innocent victims and their dependants, as against the mighty and rich owners of vehicles as well as the companies with which their vehicles are insured. While interpreting the powers of a claims tribunal, the aforesaid legislative intent must be borne in mind so that the purpose for which these provisions had been engrafted will not be frustrated.
5. Section 110-C clearly provides that in holding an enquiry under Section 110-D, the tribunal may subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. Sub-section (2) of the said section also provides that the tribunal I shall have all the powers of a civil court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed. Thus the section expressly confer power on the tribunal to formulate its own procedure which procedure, of course, should be in consonance with the principles of natural justice and should not be in conflict with any procedure prescribed under the rules made by the State Government in this regard. But if the rules framed by the State Government do not make any specific provision for a particular purpose, then the tribunal will not be incompetent to follow a procedure if such procedure is required to be followed in the interests of justice. The overriding criteria should be to secure ends of justice and not in derogation of the same.
6. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, I will now examine the impugned order of the tribunal. Coming to the first question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting an application of the claimant to be examined on commission, the only ground on which the application has been rejected is that the provisions of the Civil P.C. regarding the witnesses being examined on commission have not been made applicable to a proceeding before the tribunal under the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accident is Claims Tribunal) Rules, 1960. Rule 20 of the said Rules no doubt makes only certain provisions of the Civil P.C. applicable to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and admittedly, Order 26 dealing with issuance of commission for examination of witnesses is not included in the said Rule. But the question still remains to be considered is as to whether the Tribunal is incompetent to examine a claimant on commission who has been found to be bed-ridden and is not in a position to come and depose merely because Order 26 of the Civil P.C. had not been made applicable to a proceeding before the Tribunal under Rule 20. In my opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative, that is to say, it must be held that, the Tribunal in an appropriate case, has the power to examine, the claimant on commission if it is otherwise satisfied about, the claimant’s incapacity to appear before it and depose since that is the, only way possible for it to get the statement of the claimant, which is absolutely necessary in the interests of justice. The broad reasons for my aforesaid conclusion are firstly, there is no prohibition in the rules disentitling a tribunal to examine a person on commission; secondly, the statute itself, namely, Section 110-C enables a tribunal to follow such procedure 38 it thinks fit, and such procedure in my view would be a procedure which is required in the interests of justice. Under Section 110-B of the Act, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claims for the purpose of making an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The wore “enquiry” cast some sort of obligation on the tribunal to find out whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation and if so the quantum of compensation. In course of such enquiry if the tribunal finds that the claimant is incapacitated to appear before it and give his evidence and if his evidence is absolutely necessary for determining his entitlement as well as the quantum of compensation, then the tribunal is entitled to examine the claimant on commission so as to discharge his responsibilities and obligations under the statute and to do justice between the parties and for effective adjudication. In fact, in the case of The Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Lakshmi Rani Pal, AIR 1977 Cal 249, though the provisions of Order 19 of the Civil P.C. had not been made applicable by the rules framed by the State Government, yet the Calcutta High Court held that in the absence of any restraint under the rules, the tribunal is entitled to follow its own procedure for ends of justice in the context of circumstances of the case. In the context of the admitted accident and involvement of the Corporation’s vehicle therein leading to death of the husband and father of the petitioners, the tribunal deemed it fit in the interests of justice to allow the petitioners another opportunity to examine the witnesses already examined and according to the High Court such procedure does not offend any provision of law while it is inconsistent with natural justice and fair play. In essence, it was held that the tribunal can follow the procedure provided under Order 18, Rule 17, Civil P.C. though the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act by the State Government had not made the said provision applicable. The question as to whether the tribunal has power to issue commission for examination of witnesses came up directly for consideration before the Madras High Court in the case of P. Shanmugham v. Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1974 Mad 363. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court interpreting Section 110-C of the Act, more particularly Section 110-C (2) came to the conclusion that the provision which has invested the tribunal with the power to enforce the attendance of witnesses must include within it the lesser power to have the witnesses examined on commission. It would be profitable to extract a passage from the said judgment : —
“…….Our main reason is that Section 110-C (2) of the Act which has invested the Tribunal with all the powers of a civil court for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses, will include within it the lesser power of having the evidence of witnesses recorded on commission. It is obviously to the advantage of a witness to have his evidence recorded at his own place instead of his being obliged to travel all the way to the place of the sitting of the Tribunal, particularly in a case where the witness lives far away viz. 250 miles away, as in this case, and sometimes even further away. The power to enforce the attendance of witnesses is obviously a large power than the power to have their evidence recorded on commission, because if a witness is forced to attend the courts, to that extent his liberty and convenience are interfered with, whereas, if he is examined on commission, he can remain at his place without his regular work being interfered with. The lesser power of having the evidence of a witness taken on commission must therefore be held to be included within the larger power of enforcing the attendance of a witness. If we were to deny the Tribunal the lesser power, it would mean that the Tribunal is obliged to enforce the attendance even though it is prepared to have the evidence of the witness taken on commission which will be more inconvenient to the witness.”
The aforesaid observations will equally apply to examination of a person on commission who on account of sickness or infirmity is unable to attend a tribunal notwithstanding the fact that Rule 20 of the Rules has not made Order 26 applicable to a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the claimant’s application to be examined on commission must, therefore, be rejected.
7. The next question which crops up for consideration is whether the order rejecting the application of the legal representatives of the deceased to be impleaded as claimants under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C., is justified and legal or not. The Tribunal has assigned two reasons in rejecting the said application, namely, the earlier order of the Tribunal rejecting a similar prayer made by the claimant for amendment filed under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil P.C. and further Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C. not having been made applicable under Rule 20 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, 1960. In my opinion, both the grounds are unsupportable in law. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that under Section 110-A(c), an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 110 may be made by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. The proviso to the said clause is to the effect that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. Sub-section (2) of Section 110-A requires that every application shall be made to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. The word “prescribed” means prescribed under any rules made by the State Government as contemplated under Section 110-C of the Act, For the sake of clarity, Section 110-A (1)(c) with the proviso and Sub-section (2) thereof is quoted herein below in extenso : —
Section 110-A. (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 110 may be made —
(a) & (b)………….
(c) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be :
Provided that where all the legal representatives to the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.
(2) Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed :
Provided…….”
Rule 3 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, 1960, provides that every application for payment of compensation made under Section 110-A shall be made in the form appended to the rules. The form that has been appended contains 29 columns to be filled in by the claimant. There is no provision to implead any person as respondent Column 18 provides for name and address of applicant and column 19 provides for relationship with the deceased. Column 22 requires the name’s of other legal representatives, if any, of the deceased with their addresses and relationship with the deceased to be given. Obviously, those whose names do not appear as against column 18 meant for name and address of the applicant, are required to be given against column 22. Column 23 is meant for any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim. The prescribed form indicates that the claimant must furnish the particulars as required in the said form in different columns, obviously for the purpose of enabling the Tribunal to find out the amount of compensation, the liability of the persons to pay the same and the persons to whom the compensation has to be paid. This being the nature of requirment, even if some of the legal representatives of the deceased had not joined themselves in the category of the applicants as required under column 18 of the form, yet, in law they are entitled to receive compensation since the proviso to Section 110-A (1)(c) indicates that the application is for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased. Then again, the object of furnishing the names of other legal representatives of the deceased with their address and relationship with the deceased in Column 22 is to enable the Tribunal to find out who all are entitled to receive the compensation in case the compensation is awarded, since it is the duty of the Tribunal not only to assess the compensation or damages but also to fix the liability of the person who shall pay the same as well as the entitlement of the persons to receive the same. In this view of the matter, an application of the legal representatives of the deceased to be impleaded in the category of claimants could not have been rejected on the ground that Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, has not been made applicable to the proceeding before the Tribunal. It is of course true that in the present case the names of the legal representatives of the deceased had not been mentioned as against column. 22. But in a separate sheet in compliance with the informations required in column 23, their names as well as relationship with the deceased had been given. In my view that would not make any difference in considering the application filed on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased to be impleaded as claimants to the application. The Tribunal had before it the necessary information as to who are the legal representatives of the deceased and under law the Tribunal has to award the compensation in favour of all the legal representatives of the deceased. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased to be brought on record as claimants. Such a question came up directly before the Punjab High Court in the case of New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi v. Punjab Roadways, Ambala City, AIR 1964 Punj 235, a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court held:–
“From this it follows that unless there is any prohibition in the rules framed under the Act, the Tribunal is free to follow any procedure which it considers expedient in the interests of justice. In similar situation, Bhandari C.J., observed in (1957) 59 Punj LR 45 that in the absence of a restraining provision a Tribunal is at liberty to follow any procedure that it may choose to evolve for itself so long as the said procedure is orderly and consistent with the rules of natural justice and does not contravene the positive provisions of the law. The section expressly confers powers on the Tribunal to formulate its own procedure, and for the purpose of promoting the ends of justice it could well resort to all the principles of an orderly trial and for that purpose exercise the powers of allowing amendments or substitution so as to rectify a mistake or to bring on record parties which were necessary or proper. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal acted quite properly in allowing substitution in accordance with the principles embodied in Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. since this rule did not in term apply and there is no prohibition in resorting to the principles contained therein, the technicalities of that rules are not be taken note of by the Tribunal, and it is only the spirit that has to be applied with the object of securing the ends of justice. Thus, I do not find anything wrong in the Tribunal allowing the substitution of the name of Shrimati Lajwanti for Dev Raj who had wrongly filed the application.”
The powers of the Tribunal in the matter of procedure are unfettered subject to the condition that the procedure adopted should not be contrary to the separate order or rules made therein. The paramount consideration of the Tribunal should be the requirement of interests of justice. The particulars in the form are the relevant facts before the Tribunal who has been entrusted with the duty of finding out the parties who are liable to pay the compensation and the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation. In the case of Sm. Jeet Kumari Poddar v. Chittagong Engineering and Electric Supply Co. Ltd., AIR 1947 Cal 195. The Calcutta High Court held that a claim on behalf of the minor children should be made by their guardian and if the deceased is survived by his widow and she files a claim on her behalf she will be deemed to have claimed and will be entitled to get compensation even on behalf of her minor children of whom she is the guardian. Even if no such claim is specifically made by her, right to claim compensation on behalf of the minor children in the same procedure will remain unaffected. In the case of Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 1624, where the claim was made by the widow alone and later on the children were also added as claimants much after the period of limitation, and the High Court had condoned the delay, the Supreme Court held that the High Court did not err in doing so. In the case of Krishnamma v. Alice Veigas, 1966 Acc CJ 366, the Mysore High Court held that if the names of children of the deceased in the relevant column of the application form filed by the widow of the deceased are not there, the claim will be deemed to have been made on behalf of them. Under Section 110-A of the Act, an application can even be filed by the duly authorised agent of the legal representatives of the deceased. This being the position of law and bearing in mind the powers and duties of the Tribunal as set out earlier, in my view, the Tribunal fully erred in law in rejecting the application of the legal representatives of the deceased filed under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. particularly when their names did appear as against the narration of facts mentioned in column 23 of the form. In my view, the application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C., must be allowed and the legal representatives should be permitted to be added as claimants particularly when there is no objection on behalf of the respondents as to the status of the legal representatives who had filed the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil P.C.
8. The other ground of objection, namely, earlier rejection of claimant’s application under Order 6, Order 17, Civil P.C., being a bar, I do not find any substance in the same. If the legal representatives of the deceased are in law entitled to receive compensation and the compensation claimed and awarded is for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the names of such legal representatives were already on record, as necessary particulars are before the Tribunal then notwithstanding the earlier rejection of an application under Order 6, Rule 17 filed by the claimant, the application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C., cannot be rejected. Consequently, the impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the application of the legal representatives must be set aside.
9. In the net result, therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is authorised to examine the claimant on commission if the claimant still continues to be so ill that she is not in a position to come and depose before the Tribunal. The application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C., is also allowed. The Tribunal is now directed to dispose of the proceeding before it on merits in accordance with law by giving due opportunities to the parties concerned.
10. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.